Judgment 1. This application has been filed u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 20.03.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 31 of 2006/18 of 2006 whereby the S.D.J.M., Rosera has found a prima facie case against the petitioner under Ss. 498A, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and has directed to issue summons against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a police case has already been filed by the complainant registered as Baheri P.S. Case No. 12/2006 in the district of Darbhanga. On bare perusal of the complaint petition and the F.I.R. of the said case would show that no part of the alleged cruelty or demand of dowry has taken place at Rosera. Therefore, the Court at Rosera has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint case. Two separate cases on similar facts against the same petitioner are not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned order is not maintainable in the eye of law and is fit to be quashed. 3. Counsel for O.P. No. 2 opposed the submissions and submitted that Sec. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable in the present case and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 4. On a perusal of the complaint petition it appears that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Rosera. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not hold any enquiry and issue summons against the petitioner for holding trial. As the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to hold enquiry or trial, the provision of Sec. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in this case as Sec. 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable where the Magistrate is competent to hold enquiry and trial in both the cases. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the application is allowed.